Description: Includes 6 main principles, 24 criteria and 98 indicators. These criteria and indicators are not intended to be used as a tool to directly assess either the sustainability of forest management practices or the performance of a particular forest management unit (FMU). They are intended to be used as a “starting platform” for countries to formulate their own, more locally sound set of criteria and indicators.
Initiated: 9th, September, 1998
Member Countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, United Kingdom, USA, Zambia, Zimbabwe
www address: www.cifor.cgiar.org
Criteria and Indicators:
Principle. 1 Policy, planning and institutional framework are conducive to sustainable forest management (end note 1)[9]
Criterion. 1.1 There is sustained and adequate funding for the management of forests
Indicators:
1.1.1 Policy and planning are based on recent and accurate information
1.1.2 Effective instruments for inter-sectoral co-ordination on land-use and land management exist (Link to I.1.5.4)
1.1.3 A Permanent Forest Estate (PFE), which includes both protection and production forests and is the basis for sustainable management, exists and is protected by law
1.1.4 There is a regional land use plan (or PFE) which reflects the different forested land uses, and gives attention to such factors as population, agriculture, conservation, environmental, economic and cultural values
1.1.5 Institutions responsible for forest management and research are adequately funded and staffed
Criterion. 1.2 Precautionary economic policies exist (Link to C.6.4)
Indicators:
1.2.1 Reserve funds for potential damages are available (performance bond) (Links to I.6.3.6)
1.2.2 Anti-corruption provisions have been implemented
Criterion. 1.3 Non forestry policies do not distort forest management
Indicators:
1.3.1 Absence of agricultural sector incentives for production expansion
1.3.2 Absence of price controls on domestic food production
1.3.3 Absence of price controls on fuel oils
1.3.4 Absence of distorting resettlement policies
1.3.5 Absence of distorting exchange rate over or under-valuation
Criterion. 1.4 A functioning buffer zone exists
Indicators:
1.4.1 Low level of conflict at Forest Management Unit (FMU) boundary
1.4.2 Local respect for FMU boundary
1.4.3 Forest management (e.g. company, concession) has demonstrated attempts to protect FMU boundaries
Criterion. 1.5 Legal framework protects access to forest and forest resources
Indicators:
1.5.1 Security of tenure is clear and documented
1.5.2 Existence of non-confiscatory land use policy
1.5.3 Existence of property rights for exploited non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (e.g. fuel wood)
1.5.4 Land tenurial prerequisite policy does not discriminate against forestry
1.5.5 Efficient equivalence log price/export log price
1.5.6 Transparent system of concession allocation
Criterion. 1.6 Demonstrated reinvestment in forest-use options
Indicator:
1.6.1 Absence of excessive capital mobility (promoting 'cut and run')
ECOLOGY
Principle. 2. Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity
Criterion. 2.1 The processes that maintain biodiversity in managed forests (FMUs) are conserved. (Link to P.3)
Indicator:
2.1.1 Landscape pattern is maintained (end note 2) (Linkage to V.6.4.8.1)
Verifiers:
2.1.1.1 FMU compiles information on areal extent of each vegetation type in the intervention area compared to area of the vegetation type in the total FMU
2.1.1.2 Number of patches of each vegetation type at the FMU is maintained within natural variation(end note 3)
2.1.1.3 Largest patch size of each vegetation type is maintained within critical limits (end note 3)
2.1.1.4 Area weighted patch size is maintained within critical limits (end note 4)
2.1.1.5 Contagion index of the degree to which vegetation types are aggregated, is maintained within critical limits (end note 4)
2.1.1.6 Dominance of patch structure does not show significant change as compared to unlogged site (end note 3 & 4)
2.1.1.7 Fractal dimension of patch shape is maintained within critical limits (end note 4)
2.1.1.8 Average, minimum, and maximum distance between two patches of the same cover type are maintained within natural variation (end note 4)
2.1.1.9 Percolation index, specifying landscape 'connectedness', is maintained within critical limits (end note 4)
2.1.1.10 Linear measures of the total amount of edge of each vegetation type exist
2.1.1.11 Amount of edge around the largest patch does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest (end note 3)
Indicator:
2.1.2 Change in diversity of habitat as a result of human interventions are maintained within critical limits as defined by natural variation and/or regional conservation objectives (Linkage to V.6.4.8.1)
Verifiers:
2.1.2.1 Vertical structure of the forest is maintained within natural variation (Direct link to V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.2.5; V.2.1.5.3; Indirect link to V.2.1.3.3; V.2.1.4.2; V.2.1.4.3)
2.1.2.2 Size class distribution does not show significant change over natural variation (Direct link to V.2.1.2.1; V.2.1.2.4; V.2.1.2.5; V.2.1.2.7; V.2.1.5.3; Indirect link to V.2.1.3.3; V.2.1.4.2; V.2.1.4.3)
2.1.2.3 Frequency distributions of leaf size and shape are maintained within natural variation (Direct link to V.2.1.3.1; I.2.1.4; Indirect link to V.2.1.3.3; V.2.1.4.2; V.2.1.4.3)
2.1.2.4 Frequency distribution of phases of the forest regeneration cycle is maintained within critical limits (Direct link to V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.2.5; V.2.1.2.6; V.2.1.3.1)
2.1.2.5 Canopy openness in the forest understorey is minimized. (end note 5) (Direct link to V.2.1.2.1; V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.2.4)
2.1.2.6 Other structural elements do not show significant change (Direct link to V.2.1.2.4; V.2.1.2.5; V.2.1.2.7; V.2.1.6.1; V.2.1.6.3; V.2.1.6.5)
2.1.2.7 The distribution of above ground biomass does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest (end note 4)
Indicator:
2.1.3 Community guild structures do not show significant changes in the representation of especially sensitive guilds, pollinator and disperser guilds
Verifiers:
2.1.3.1 Relative abundance of seedling, saplings and poles of canopy tree species belonging to different regeneration guilds does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest (Direct link to V.2.1.2.3; V.2.1.2.4; V.2.1.6.1; V.2.1.6.3; V.2.1.6.5)
2.1.3.2 The abundance of selected avian guilds is maintained within natural variation. (end note 5) (Direct link to V.2.1.4.3)
2.1.3.3 The abundance of nests of social bees is maintained within natural variation (Indirect link to V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.2.3)
2.1.3.4 The abundance of seed in key plant species does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest. (end note 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.3.5; V.2.1.3.6; V.2.1.4.3)
2.1.3.5 Fruiting intensity in known bat-pollinated tree species does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest (end note 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.3.4)
2.1.3.6 The abundance and activity of terrestrial frugivorous mammals is maintained within critical limits. (end note 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.3.4)
2.1.3.7 The diversity of forest floor invertebrate communities does not vary significantly between logged and undisturbed forest (Direct link to I.6.4.3)
Indicator:
2.1.4 The richness/diversity of selected groups show no significant change. (end note 6) (Direct link to I.6.4.3)
Verifiers:
2.1.4.1 Species richness of prominent groups is maintained or enhanced
2.1.4.2 Number of different birdcalls do not vary significantly as compared to unlogged site. (end note 4) (Indirect link to V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.2.3; V.2.1.2.4)
2.1.4.3 Number of large butterfly species is maintained within natural variation (Direct link to V.2.1.3.2; V.2.1.3.4) (Indirect link to V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.2.3; V.2.1.2.4)
2.1.4.4 Numbers of species removed from the forest for sale in local markets
2.1.4.5 Lists of selected groups of species, compiled by acknowledged experts, do not show significant change
2.1.4.6 Temporal change in species richness is not significant (end note 4).
2.1.4.7 Time series of the ratio of composition of mature forest species to secondary growth species shows no significant change
2.1.4.8 The spatial diversity of selected groups is maintained within natural variation
Indicator:
2.1.5 Population sizes and demographic structures of selected species do not show significant change, and demographically and ecologically critical life-cycle stages continue to be represented
Verifiers:
2.1.5.1 The absolute population size of selected species is maintained within natural variation
2.1.5.2 Temporal change in the population size is not significant
2.1.5.3 Tree age or structure does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest. (end note 6) (Direct link to V.2.1.2.1; V.2.1.2.2)
2.1.5.4 Population growth rate does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest (end note 6).
2.1.5.5 Spatial structure of population is maintained within natural variation
Indicator:
2.1.6 The status of decomposition and nutrient cycling shows no significant change (Linkage to V.6.4.8.1)
Verifiers:
2.1.6.1 Standing and fallen dead wood does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest. (end note 6) (Direct link to I.2.1.2; V.2.1.2.6; V.2.1.3.1; V.2.1.6.2)
2.1.6.2 State of decay of all dead wood does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest. (end note 6) (Direct link to V.2.1.6.1)
2.1.6.3 Abundance of small woody debris does not show significant change as compared to undisturbed forest. (end note 6) (Direct link to V.2.1.2.6; V.2.1.3.1; V.2.1.6.2; V.2.1.6.4)
2.1.6.4 Depth of litter/gradient of decomposition does not vary significantly between undisturbed and logged sites. (end note 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.6.3; V.2.1.6.6)
2.1.6.5 Abundance of decomposer organisms is maintained within natural variation. (end of 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.2.6; V.2.1.3.1)
2.1.6.6 Decomposition rate on the forest floor does not show significant change. (end note 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.6.3; V.2.1.6.4)
2.1.6.7 Soil conductivity and pH do not show significant change as compared to unlogged site (end note 4).
2.1.6.8 Soil nutrient levels are maintained within critical limits (end of note 4).
Indicator:
2.1.7 There is no significant change in the quality and quantity of water from the catchment (Direct link to V.6.4.8.1)
Verifiers:
2.1.7.1 Abundance and diversity of aquatic organisms is maintained within critical limits. (Direct link to V.2.1.7.3)
2.1.7.2 Chemical composition of stream water does not show significant variation as compared to unlogged forest (end note 4).
2.1.7.3 Decomposition rate of the stream water does not show significant change as compared to unlogged forest (end note 4) (Direct link to V.2.1.7.1)
2.1.7.4 Stream flow does not show significant change as compared to the flow in the unlogged site.
Criterion. 2.2 Ecosystem function is maintained
Indicators:
2.2.1 No chemical contamination to food chains and ecosystem (Direct link to V.6.4.8.1)
2.2.2 Ecologically sensitive areas, especially buffer zones along watercourses, are protected
2.2.3 Representative areas, especially sites of ecological importance, are protected and appropriately managed
2.2.4 Rare or endangered species are protected
2.2.5 Erosion and other forms of soil degradation are minimised
Criterion. 2.3 Concervation of the processes that maintain genetic variation (end note 7)
Indicator:
2.3.1 Levels of genetic diversity are maintained within critical limits.
Demographic verifiers:
2.3.1.1 Census number of sexually mature individuals is above critical absolute values
2.3.1.2 Census number of reproducing individuals is above critical absolute values (Direct link to V.2.1.3.4; V.2.1.3.5)
2.3.1.3 Coefficient of phenotypic variation is higher or not significantly different from reference population
Genetic verifiers:
2.3.1.4 Number of alleles is maintained
2.3.1.5 Gene diversity is maintained
2.3.1.6 Genetic variation is maintained
Indicator:
2.3.2 There is no directional change in genotypic frequencies
Demographic verifiers:
2.3.2.1 Phenotypic shifts show no significant change
2.3.2.2 Age/size class shifts show no significant change (Direct link to V.2.1.2.2; V.2.1.3.1; V.2.1.4.7; V.2.1.5.1; V.2.1.5.3; V.2.1.5.5)
2.3.2.3 Environmental shifts show no significant change
Genetic verifiers:
2.3.2.4 Genotypic frequency shifts show no significant change
2.3.2.5 Marker frequency shifts show no significant change
2.3.2.6 Genetic mean shifts show no significant change
Indicator:
2.3.3 There are no changes in gene flow/migration
Demographic verifiers:
2.3.3.1 Physical isolation shows no significant change (Direct link to V.2.1.1.5; V.2.1.1.6; V.2.1.1.9)
2.3.3.2 Mating isolation shows no significant change (Direct link to V.2.1.1.5; V.2.1.1.6; V.2.1.1.9)
2.3.3.3 Seed dispersal shows no significant change
2.3.3.4 Pollen dispersal shows no significant change
Genetic verifier:
2.3.3.5 Gene flow shows no significant change
Indicator:
2.3.4 There are no changes in the mating system
Demographic verifiers:
2.3.4.1 Parental pool size shows no significant change
2.3.4.2 Seed germination shows no significant change
2.3.4.3 Pollinator abundance is maintained
2.3.4.4 Sex ratio is maintained
Genetic verifiers:
2.3.4.5 Out-crossing rate shows no significant change
2.3.4.6 Correlated mating shows no significant change
Principle. 3. Forest management maintains or enhances fair intergenerational access to resources and economic benefits
Criterion. 3.1 Local management is effective in controlling maintenance of, and access to, the resource (Direct link to P.2, Indirect link to C.1.5; V2.1.3.4; V2.1.4.1)
Indicators:
3.1.1 Ownership and use rights to resources (inter and intra-generational) are clear and respect pre-existing claims (Direct link to I.1.1.4; I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2; I.2.1.4; C.1.5; I.3.3.1; I.4.2.1; I.6.2.1; Indirect link to I.1.1.2; I.2.1.3; I.1.5.1; I.3.1.2; I.3.1.4; I.3.1.5; I.4.2.2; I.4.2.4)
3.1.2 Rules and norms of resource use are monitored and successfully enforced (Direct link to I.1.1.3; C.1.5; I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2; I.2.1.4; C.6.4; Indirect link to I.2.1.3; I.3.1.1; I.3.1.3; I.3.1.5; I.4.2.1; I.4.3.1)
3.1.3 Means of conflict resolution function without violence (Direct link to I.1.4.1; I.3.2.1; I.3.2.4; I.4.3.1; Indirect link to I.4.1.2; I.4.1.3; I.4.2.4; I.4.2.5; C.7.2)
3.1.4 Access to forest resources is perceived locally to be fair (Direct link to I.3.2.1; I.4.3.1; Indirect link to C.1.5; I.4.2.4; I.4.2.5)
Verifiers:
3.1.4.1 Access of small timber operators to timber concessions (Indirect link to I.1.5.4)
3.1.4.2 Access of non-timber users to non-timber forest products (Indirect link to C.1.5)
Indicator:
3.1.5 Local people feel secure about access to resources (Direct link to I.1.1.4; I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2; I.2.1.4; I.2.1.6; I.3.3.1; I.3.3.5; I.4.2.4; I.4.2.5; I.4.3.1); (Indirect link to C.1.5; I.1.5.1; I.2.1.3; I.3.3.2; I.4.1.1; I.4.1.2; I.4.1.3; I.6.1.1)
Criterion. 3.2 Forest actors have a reasonable share in the economic benefits derived from forest use (Indirect link to I.6.6.4)
Indicators:
3.2.1 Mechanisms for sharing benefits are seen as fair by local communities (Direct link to I.3.1.1; I.3.1.2; I.3.1.3; I.3.1.4; Indirect link to I.1.1.4; I.3.1.5; I.3.2.2; I.3.2.3; I.3.2.4; I.4.2.4; I.5.3.2)
3.2.2 Opportunities exist for local and forest-dependent people to receive employment and training from forest companies (Direct link to I.5.2.3; Indirect link to I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2; I.2.1.3; I.2.1.4; I.3.2.1; I.3.2.3; I.5.2.1)
Verifier
3.2.2.1 The number of local people employed in forest management (disaggregated e.g., by gender, ethnicity, etc.)
Indicator:
3.2.3 Wages and other benefits conform to national and/or International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards (Direct link to I.1.1.5; I.5.2.3; Indirect link to I.3.2.2)
Indicator:
3.2.4 Damages are compensated in a fair manner (Direct link to I.1.2.1; I.3.1.2; I.3.1.3; I.3.1.4; Indirect link to I.3.1.5)
Verifier
3.2.4.1 Number of people affected by off-site impacts, without compensation
Indicator:
3.2.5 The various forest products are used in an optimal and equitable way
Criterion. 3.3 People link their and their children's future with management of forest resources
Indicators:
3.3.1 People invest in their surroundings (i.e., time, effort, and money) (Direct link to C.1.6; I.3.1.5; I.5.1.1)
3.3.2 Out-migration levels are low (Direct link to I.5.1.2, Indirect link to I.3.3.6; I.5.3.3)
3.3.3 People recognise the need to balance number of people with natural resource use (Direct link to I.5.1.2, Indirect link to I.2.1.2; I.3.3.1; I.3.3.2; I.3.3.4; I.3.3.5; I.3.3.6)
3.3.4 Children are educated (formally and informally) about natural resource management (Direct link to I.5.3.3, Indirect link to I.3.3.1; I.3.3.3; I.3.3.6)
3.3.5 Destruction of natural resources by local communities is rare (Direct link to I.3.1.2; I.3.1.3; I.4.3.1; I.5.1.1, Indirect link to C.1.4; I.1.4.3; I.3.1.4; I.3.3.1; I.3.3.3; I.3.3.4; I.3.3.6; I.5.3.3)
3.3.6 People maintain spiritual or emotional links to the land (Indirect link to I.3.1.5; I.3.3.1; I.3.3.2; I.3.3.3; I.3.3.4; I.3.3.5; I.3.3.6)
Principle. 4. Concerned shareholders have acknowledged rights and means to manage forests cooperatively and equitably
Criterion. 4.1 Effective mechanisms exist for two-way communication related to forest management among stakeholders
Indicators:
4.1.1 > 50% of timber company personnel and forestry officials speak one or more local language, or > 50% local women speak the national language used by the timber company in local interactions (Indirect link to I.4.1.2; I.4.1.3)
4.1.2 Local stakeholders meet with satisfactory frequency, representation of local diversity, and quality of interaction (Direct link to I.1.1.2, Indirect link to I.3.1.3; I.4.2.1; I.4.2.4; I.4.2.5; I.4.3.1)
4.1.3 Contributions made by all stakeholders are mutually respected and valued at a generally satisfactory level (Direct link to I.3.1.3; I.4.3.1, Indirect link to I.4.1.1; I.4.1.2)
Criterion. 4.2 Local stakeholders have detailed, reciprocal knowledge pertaining to forest resource use (including user groups and gender roles), as well as forest management plans prior to implementation
Indicators:
4.2.1 Plans/maps showing integration of uses by different stakeholders exist (Direct link to I.1.1.2; I.1.1.4; I.3.1.1; I.5.3.2, Indirect I.4.1.3; I.4.2.2; I.4.2.3; I.4.2.4: I.4.2.5; I.6.1.1)
4.2.2 Updated plans, baseline studies and maps are widely available, outlining logging details such as cutting areas and road construction, and include temporal aspects (Direct link to I.6.2.1, Indirect link to I.4.2.1; I.4.2.4; I.4.2.5; I.6.4.3)
4.2.3 Baseline studies of local human systems are available and consulted (Direct link to I.5.3.1)
4.2.4 Management staff recognises the legitimate interests and rights of other stakeholders (Direct link to I.3.1.1; I.4.2.1; I.5.3.2, Indirect link to I.4.1.3; I.4.2.5)
4.2.5 Management of NTFP reflects the interests and rights of local stakeholders (Direct link to I.2.1.4; I.3.1.1, Indirect link to I.1.1.2; I.1.1.4; I.2.1.7; I.4.1.3; I4.2.1; I4.2.4; I.5.3.2)
Criterion. 4.3 Agreement exists on rights and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders
Indicator:
4.3.1 Level of conflict is acceptable to stakeholders (Direct link to I.1.4.1; I.3.1.3; I.3.2.4; I.3.3.5, Indirect link to I.3.1.1; I.3.1.4; I.4.2.4)
Principle. 5. The health of forest actors, cultures and the forest is acceptable to all stakeholders (end note 8)
Criterion. 5.1 There is a recognisable balance between human activities and environmental conditions
Indicators:
5.1.1 Environmental conditions affected by human uses are stable or improving (Direct link to I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2; I.2.1.3; I.2.1.4; I.2.1.5; I.2.1.6; I.3.1.5; I.3.3.1, Indirect link to I.1.1.3; I.3.3.3; I.3.3.5; I.5.1.2)
5.1.2 In-migration and/or natural population increases are in harmony with maintaining the forest (Direct link to I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2; I.2.1.4; I.3.3.2; I.3.3.3, Indirect link to I.1.1.4; I.1.5.3; I.2.1.3; I.3.1.5; C.4.2; I.5.1.1; I.5.2.2)
Criterion. 5.2 The relationship between forest maintenance and human health is recognised
Indicators:
5.2.1 Forest managers cooperate with public health authorities regarding illnesses related to forest management (Direct link to I.2.1.6, Indirect link to I.2.1.4; I.3.2.3)
5.2.2 Nutritional status is adequate among local populations (Direct link to I.2.1.2; I.2.1.4; I.4.2.5, Indirect link to I.2.1.1; I.5.1.1; I.5.2.1; I.5.2.3)
5.2.3 Forest employers follow ILO work and safety regulations and take responsibility for the forest-related health risks of workers (Direct link to I.3.2.2; I.3.2.3; I.3.2.4, Indirect link to I.5.2.2)
Criterion. 5.3 The relationship between forest maintenance and human culture is acknowledged as important
Indicators:
5.3.1 Forest managers can explain links between relevant human cultures and the local forest (Direct link to I.2.1.2; I.2.1.4; I.4.1.1, Indirect link to I.2.1.3; I.4.1.2; I.4.1.3; I.5.3.2; I.5.3.3)
5.3.2 Forest management plans reflect care in handling human cultural issues (Direct link to I.4.1.2; I.4.2.3; I.5.3.1, Indirect link to I.4.1.1; I.4.1.3; I.4.2.1; I.4.2.5; I.5.3.3)
5.3.3 There is no significant increase in signs of cultural disintegration (Direct link to I.2.1.1; I.2.1.2, Indirect link to I.2.1.3; I.2.1.4; I.2.1.6; I.2.1.7; I.3.1.5; I.3.3.1; I.3.3.2; I.3.3.3; I.3.3.4; I.3.3.5; I.3.3.6; I.5.3.1; I.5.3.2)
Principle. 6. Yield and quality of forest goods and services are sustainable
Criterion. 6.1 Forest management unit is implemented on the basis of legal title on the land, recognised customary rights, or clear lease agreements
Indicators:
6.1.1 Documentary evidence of the agreements with local communities under which management is entitled to manage the forest exists
6.1.2 Information on the identity, location and population of all indigenous and traditional peoples living in the vicinity of the management area or claiming customary rights to the management area exists
6.1.3 Evidence or statements from the representative organisations of local indigenous or tradition-al communities defining the extent of their territories exist, and include maps
Criterion. 6.2 Management objectives are clearly and precisely described and documented
Indicator:
6.2.1 Objectives are clearly stated in terms of the major functions of the forests, with due respect to their spatial distribution (Direct link to C.6.1; C6.3; C.6.4, Indirect link to C.6.5)
Criterion. 6.3 Forest management plan is comprehensive
Indicator:
6.3.1 A comprehensive forest management plan exists
Verifiers:
6.3.1.1 Maps of resources, management, ownership and inventories are available (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.4; C.6.5)
6.3.1.2 The management plan looks beyond the second cutting cycle (Direct link to C.1.6; C.6.2; C.6.4, Indirect link to C.6.1; C.6.5)
Indicator:
6.3.2 Management take place with appropriate involvement of the stakeholders and takes into account all the components and functions of the forest, such as timber production, NTFP, ecology and well-being of local populations (Direct link to C.4.2; C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.4, Indirect link to C.6.5)
Verifier
6.3.2.1 There is evidence of inclusion of local population in the management plan design (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.4.3; I.6.4.9)
Indicator:
6.3.3 Yield regulation by area and/or volume is prescribed (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.4; C.6.5)
Verifier
6.3.3.1 Allowable annual cuts, minimum exploitable diameter, and maximum number of trees to be harvested per hectare are specified (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.4; V.6.3.1.1; V.6.3.1.2; I.6.3.6; I.6.4.1; I.6.4.7, Indirect link to I.6.4.3; I.6.5.4)
Indicator:
6.3.4 Silvicultural systems are prescribed and are appropriate to forest type and produce growth (Direct link to C.6.2; C.6.4; C.6.5; Indirect link to C.6.1)
Verifiers:
6.3.4.1 Interventions if applied, are highly specific to the individual tree level, instead of to species or whole stand (Direct link to I.6.2.1; V.6.3.1.1; Indirect link to I.6.3.3)
6.3.4.2 Tree growth rates (at a monitored site) are not declining (Direct link to I.6.2.1; V.6.3.1.2; I.6.3.3; I.6.4.1; I.6.5.1; Indirect link to I.6.5.5)
6.3.4.3 Enrichment planting, if carried out, should be based on indigenous locally adapted species
Indicator:
6.3.5 Harvesting systems and equipment are prescribed to match forest conditions in order to reduce impact (Direct link to C.6.2; C.6.4; Indirect link to C.6.5)
Verifiers:
6.3.5.1 Harvesting standards are explicit and cover key issues (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.1; I.6.3.3; I.6.3.4; I.6.4.3; I.6.4.5; I.6.4.6; Indirect link to I.6.4.9; I.6.5.2)
6.3.5.2 Harvesting codes are comparable with FAO standards for best forest management (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.2; I.6.3.3; V.6.3.1.1; I.6.3.4; I.6.3.6; I.6.4.3; Indirect link to I.6.4.4; I.6.4.5; I.6.4.9; I.6.4.6; I.6.4.7; I.6.5.1; I.6.5.2; I.6.5.5)
6.3.5.3 Guidelines for rational harvesting of NTFP are defined and put into practice (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.1; I.6.3.2; I.6.4.3; Indirect link to I.6.4.9)
Indicator:
6.3.6 Management plan is periodically submitted to revision (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.4; Indirect link to C.6.5).
Verifiers:
6.3.6.1 Management plan is approved by the appropriate authority such as minister in charge of the forest (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.3; I.6.3.5; I.6.4.3; Indirect link to I.6.4.1)
6.3.6.2 The management plan is revised and approved regularly, e.g. every five years (Direct link to I.6.2.1; V.6.3.1.1; I.6.3.3; I.6.3.5; I.6.4.3; I.6.4.1; Indirect link to I.6.5.2)
Criterion. 6.4 Implementation of the management plan is effective
Indicators:
6.4.1 The forest unit is zoned into areas to be managed for various objectives (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.3; Indirect link to C.6.5)
6.4.2 Boundaries are marked in the field (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; Indirect link to C.6.3; C.6.5)
6.4.3 Inventory of all forest uses and products are available (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.3; C.6.5)
Verifiers:
6.4.3.1 Pre-harvest inventory is satisfactorily completed according to national standard (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.2; I.6.3.3; V.6.3.1.1; I.6.3.4; I.6.3.5; I.6.3.6; I.6.4.1; I.6.4.2; I.6.4.3; I.6.5.4; Indirect link to I.6.5.1; I.6.5.2)
6.4.3.2 NTFP and their uses are identified (Direct link to I.6.2.1; V.6.3.1.1; I.6.3.2; I.6.3.5; I.6.4.9)
Indicator:
6.4.4 Workers and staff have adequate training to implement management (Direct link to C.6.2; Indirect link to C.6.3; C.6.5)
Indicator:
6.4.5 Infrastructure is laid out prior to harvesting and in accordance with prescriptions (Direct link to C.6.2; C.6.3; Indirect link to C.6.1; C.6.5)
Verifiers:
6.4.5.1 Rational infrastructure required for logging is made permanent (Direct link to I.6.2.1; V.6.3.1.1; I.6.3.3; I.6.3.5; I.6.4.3; I.6.4.6; I.6.4.9; Indirect link to I.6.3.4; I.6.3.6; I.6.4.2)
6.4.5.2 Road and track network within the FMU is minimised (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.1; I.6.3.2; I.6.4.6; Indirect link to I.2.1.1; V.2.1.1.9; I.2.1.7; Verifier.2.1.7.2; V.2.1.7.4; I.2.2.5; I.6.3.3)
Indicator:
6.4.6 Low residual stand damage (Direct link to C.6.2; C.6.3; C.6.5; Indirect link to C.6.1; I.6.3.5)
Verifiers:
6.4.6.1 Reduced impact logging specified/implemented (Direct link to I.6.2.1; V.6.3.1.1; I.6.3.2; I.6.3.5; Indirect link to I.6.3.3)
6.4.6.2 Logging activities are suspended during periods of heavy rain (Direct link to I.2.2.5; I.6.2.1; I.6.3.5; I.6.4.7)
6.4.6.3 Skidding damage to the stand and soil is minimised (Direct link to I.6.2.1; I.6.3.5; I.6.4.3; I.6.4.5; I.6.4.7; Indirect link to I.2.2.5; I.6.3.3)
Indicator:
6.4.7 Rehabilitation of degraded and impacted forest is undertaken in accordance with a code of practice (Direct link: C.6.2; C.6.3; C.6.5; Indirect link to C.6.1)
Indicator:
6.4.8 Absence of significant off-site impacts such as on down stream water quality/quantity, infrastructure etc.
Verifier:
6.4.8.1 Number of official complaints, court cases etc.
Indicator:
6.4.9 Systems for production and transformation of forest products are efficient (Direct link to C.6.2; C.6.3; Indirect link to C.6.5)
Verifiers:
6.4.9.1 No sawn logs remain rotting in the forest, at landings or the port (Direct link to I.6.3.5; I.6.4.5)
6.4.9.2 The volume output is maximised at each step of the wood processing chain (Direct link to I.6.3.3; I.6.4.3)
6.4.9.3 Sawmill wastes are utilised for vertically integrated units (end note 9)
6.4.9.4 Recovery rates for each line of products (within the 1st and 2nd transformation) bear comparison to regional or international rates (end note 9)
6.4.9.5 Wide ranges of NTFPs are effectively marketed (end note 9) (Indirect link to I.6.3.5)
6.4.9.6 Utilisation of secondary and lower grade species
6.4.9.7 High use-rates of local wood processing capacity (end note 9)
Criterion. 6.5 An effective monitoring and controlling system audit's management's conformity with planning
Indicators:
6.5.1 Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) plots are established and measured regularly (Direct link to C.6.3; C.6.4; Indirect link to C.6.2)
6.5.2 Documentation and record of all forest management and forest activities are kept in forms that enable monitoring (Direct link: C.6.2; C.6.4; Indirect: C.6.3)
6.5.3 Worked coupes are protected (e.g. from fire, encroachment and premature re-entry) (Direct link to C.6.1; C.6.2; C.6.4; Indirect link to C.6.3)
6.5.4 Tree marking of seed stock and potential crop trees is practised (Direct link to C.6.3; C.6.4; Indirect link to C.6.2)
6.5.5 Results derived from monitoring and research, as well as any additional scientific and technical information, are incorporated into the implementation and revision of the management plan (Direct link to C.6.4; Indirect link to C.6.2; C.6.3).
Criterion. 6.6 Equitable distribution and presence of economic rent (end note 10)
Indicators:
6.6.1 Estimated government rent capture
6.6.2 Estimated operator (manager) rent capture
6.6.3 Estimated forest local dwellers rent capture
End notes:
1. The criteria and indicators listed under principle (P.1) deal with issues that are largely outside the control of the local forest managers, but nonetheless have an important influence on the outcomes of management at the FMU level.
2. Not all the verifiers specified within each indicator need to be adopted, decisions depends upon the specific condition of the FMU in question.
3. The terms 'natural variation', 'critical limit', 'unlogged site', and 'undisturbed forest' are used to set baselines. If these baselines are too high then other suitable baselines can be substituted such as 'successfully regenerated forest' or 'well managed forest'.
4. These verifiers are being subjected to a program of rigorous testing by CIFOR and its collaborators. Updates on the results will be posted regularly on CIFOR's web page at URL: http://www.cgiar.org/cifor.
5. Dependant on the type of forest and management objectives.
6. Legitimate comparisons can be to undisturbed forest, regional conservation criteria or management objectives that do not conflict with regional conservation interest.
7. This criterion, while important, will usually be considered for monitoring or assessment only on sites that are sensitive and/or of high biological value.
8. This principle and its associate subordinates are being subjected to a program of rigorous testing by CIFOR and its research collaborators. Updates on the results will be posted regularly on the CIFOR's web page.
9. Optional, depending on local conditions such as vertical integration.
10. Criterion and its subordinate are being subjected to a program of rigorous testing by CIFOR and its research collaborators. Updates on the results will be posted regularly on CIFOR's web page.
Source: CIFOR, 1999. The CIFOR Criteria and Indicators Generic Template. Tool Box Series No. 2. ISBN:979-8764-29-3. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia.
